The federal government has switched sides on the Janus decision, and will now argue that people should not be required to pay union dues. The purpose of the Janus offense is to cripple unions, which usually support Democrats in political campaigns. Like others on the far right, the federal government is now opposed to unions.

Although Janus bases his appeal on free speech grounds, meaning he does not want to pay for speech he does not agree with, most union members do not pay for political action.

The Trump administration has weighed in against continuing mandatory union dues for public workers, a shift in the federal government’s position ahead of upcoming Supreme Court arguments in the much-watched Janus case.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed a brief Thursday supporting Mark Janus, an Illinois state worker who argues it’s a violation of the First Amendment to force him to pay dues that support a union that advocates positions Janus himself doesn’t support.

The First Amendment establishes a “bedrock principle” that except in “the rarest of circumstances,” no one should be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she doesn’t wish to support, the government’s brief says, quoting an earlier Supreme Court ruling.

“That principle has added force when applied to the compelled subsidization of speech on public issues, which lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection and triggers demanding scrutiny,” the government said, urging the court to overturn a precedent from the 1970s known as Abood that set up the current system.

Public-sector employees, including teachers, are forced to pay most union dues every year in about 20 states. Those who are opposed may opt out of paying for “political” activities. Janus and others argue that funding even basic union duties, like negotiating wages, benefits, and layoff rules, are inherently political in public-sector unions because they affect government policy and funding.

The filing is a departure from the position the Obama administration took in similar cases in recent years in which it supported the continuation of mandatory dues, sometimes called “fair share” fees.

In other words, Janus wants the benefits that his union wins for him, but he doesn’t want to pay any dues to the union.

This court case is purely political. It is an effort to try to crush unions so that employees have no rights.

As Gordon Lafer writes in his important book, The One Percent Solution, the reason that corporations, ALEC, and right-wingers attack unions is because unions raise the aspirations and expectations of non-union workers. Union workers have health benefits, pensions, and higher wages. Non-union workers want the same. If unions are crushed, all workers will see a downward trend in the terms of their employment. They will be at-will employees with no rights. There will be a revolution of declining expectations.